At Republican gatherings, we media types take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. Next to whoever are the leaders of the Democratic Party at a given time, we're the GOP's favorite pinatas.

They clearly feel they need to throw us to their conservative base to get their voters out.

It seems to make little difference that the Founding Fathers so expected the media, or press as it was called in their time, to antagonize those who rule that those wise men placed in the Constitution a protection for press freedom that is as sacrosanct as the right to bear arms.

Even though we know that media-bashing is part of the GOP playbook, and that nothing we say or do will change that, we still feel the need to respond to their attacks. We who cover politics follow the rules of politics; no charge should go unanswered, preferably with a rapid response.

After several primetime speakers at this week's Republican National Convention unleashed a barrage of attacks on the news media for their coverage of vice-presidential nominee Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, network news executives defended their coverage and dismissed the charges as a stale political strategy meant to distract viewers from legitimate election issues.

"It's a time-honored marketing ploy and, every time they bash the media, it means they're not talking about a vision or a plan," CNN president Jon Klein said. "But the best antidote to cynical marketing is solid reporting."

CNN had a dustup with the McCain campaign earlier this week after Campbell Brown's persistent questioning of McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds on Palin's foreign-policy experience as governor of Alaska prompted the campaign to cancel McCain's scheduled appearance on Larry King Live. (Bounds and CNN have since patched thing up.)

"America has been presented with a total unknown who might be a heartbeat away from the presidency," Klein said of Palin, "and Americans have every right to expect as much information as possible about this person so that they can make an informed choice. Certainly our critics are in favor of Americans making an informed choice, aren't they?"

Scrutiny of the nominee only intensified Monday when the campaign revealed that the socially conservative Palin's 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, is five months' pregnant.

"Network news and cable news literally did not touch the story until the press release came out from the [McCain] campaign," said Steve Capus, president of NBC News. "So when our critics demonize that coverage, I don't know what they're pointing to. It's been a respectful handling of a sensitive matter. There is nothing to that criticism. Nothing."

Comments

To: Frank James
*
You are wrong, Frank. Here is why:
*
First, the press has no right to be free from criticism. To the contrary, the First Amendment guarantees the right of everyone to disagree - even vehemently - with whatever you happen to print. Thus, criticism of press coverage is something the press must live with. It is, indeed, something the press has lived with in this country as long as free speech rights have existed. In the free marketplace of ideas, the answer to bad speech is more speech - including criticism. Your only recourse is to reply to the criticism, as you have done (poorly).
*
Second, the evil against which the First Amendment was directed was the "abridgement" of speech. (U.S. Const., First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; . . .".)) Regardless of how sharp it might be, criticism is not abridgement because it does not seek to deprive you of the right to print what you choose. If you want to know what abridgement of speech is like, just look at yourself. You folks at the Swamp censor many posts here simply because you choose to slant certain discussions toward a particular favored point of view. This is something from which the press - as a national institution - does not suffer at anyone else's hand.
*
Third, the First Amendment only protects against governmental abridgement. It is not a limitation on private action. Therefore, since the GOP has only protested what you folks are doing, and no one has gone to court to shut you up, there is nothing the GOP has said or done that violates either the spirit or the letter of the First Amendment. *
Finally, I think it terribly disingenuous of you to speak of the First and Second Amendments in the same breath with such reverence. You folks at the Tribune are so singularly opposed to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that you make Obambi look like a card carrying member of the NRA. If you don't think so, then go back and re-read the last four or five articles by James Oliphant on the subject, and particularly the one where he quotes the Tribune Editorial Board as advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment. (See http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/tribune_repeal_the_2nd_amendme.html )

when Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, told the gathering her elder son is in US army for her own publicity that is right for her. but when her daughter secret came out that is out of bound for media. while Osama,s lack of experience is given as a handicap her lack of experience have pointed out as a advantage. in Sri Lanka we got a saying when you want to eat Monitor lizard can be taken for a Iguana.those comments are just cheap politics of GOP.

Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)